Quote from: jrrsparkles on Today at 03:37:22 PM

That is what I am trying to explain, digital cash is different from decentralized monetary system and that's what bitcoin is offering. And Paypal transactions are reversible while bitcoin transactions aren't, Paypal transactions are faster but the 180 days for chargeback is big red flag while bitcoin on an avg TX gets confirmed in 10 minutes and I feel it's worth the fee to pay what we get.

Huh? Bitcoin transactions are reversible in the same way PayPal transactions are, or any other transaction system: you create a new transaction to counteract the value of the one you want to reverse. As for charge-backs, refunds, etc., the technical mechanism of the value transfer is an implementation detail. All of those things happen on top of whatever transfer mechanism you are using.

(And ten minutes for a transaction is an absolutely unthinkable amount of time for 99.99% of the world's transactions on any given day. Bitcoin transactions are only viable for extremely specialized purposes e.g. large-scale transfers. This is why it will never be "digital cash" as so many here keep saying Bitcoin was originally designed to be).

As for calling Bitcoin a "monetary system", well, I would... need you to define exactly what you mean by that before commenting on it

.

Quote from: Synchronice on Today at 03:54:57 PM

First of all, blockchain has nothing to do with mixing and anonymization. A blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes. [Source ¹]. Blockchain technology alone (also) is very interesting and beneficial for everyone, for governments too. Some governments and companies invest into development of blockchain technologies in their countries, in different niche.

Yes, but that's like saying a car has nothing to do with transportation. Clearly blockchain was meant to provide a means of transactions for entities who could not use the means they had at the time.

And I have asked here and elsewhere, in numerous times (with dedicated threads) for certified non-cryptocurrency non-NFT design wins for the blockchain architecture and thus far the answer has been zero. There's lots of hype around the technology, but nobody has actually delivered a clear customer benefit with the architecture outside of the realm of public crypto. (And why is that? Because blockchain's only unique benefit is that it thwarts government subpoenas into transactions, and that is by definition a problem that known entities cannot possibly have since they are... known). Hiding something from yourself is a pointless waste of time, which is why nobody uses blockchain inside of companies or governments.

Quote from: Synchronice on Today at 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: mk4 on May 07, 2024, 06:00:03 PM

And yes, even without privacy, Bitcoin and blockchains would still be useful, just as these are still very useful today despite privacy being very minimal.

If privacy was important for people, Monero would be number 1 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap instead of being placed at 47th place right now (with 24h volume - 136th.

I've been saying this as well. And given that most people own hold Bitcoin and other cryptos through a broker or an app, almost nobody actually cares about decentralization either.

Bitcoin is, in actual reality today, a meme investment instrument. There's nothing wrong with that, though.

Quote from: yazher on Today at 04:00:53 PM

I'm sure they are making some plan to close any possibility of taking out everything that leads to hide our identity when holding crypto.

The US dealt with this problem in the early 1970s with physical cash, and their solution was to put a dollar limit on transactions of $10,000. Anything under 10k cash and basically the government doesn't care about it. This handles most people's needs for cash.